Patriot Act: Good or Bad?

[Tim Gratz]

The privilege of debating our constitutional rights requires first that we be alive. If federal agents want to listen in on suspected terrorists as they plot their next mass murder, please allow me to turn up the volume. Meanwhile, unless I start placing calls to Peshawar using phrases such as 'I want my 72 virgins now,' then I figure I'm safe to make my next hair appointment without fear of exposure." —Kathleen Parker

Could not have said it better myself.

Only if our country survives will we have the constitutional rights we all cherish.

Please note I still await my answer to the following question:

Please identify which constitutionally protected right(s) Bush has attempted to permanently remove, other than (as we have previously discussed) the right to make international calls to terrorists without having those calls listened to.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

During the 50's 60's databases were gathered based on communications between people in the US and the soviet block. First class mail was being illegally opened.

In Mississippi ex FBI agents and others gathered data on anti segregationists.

Whether any of this protected the rights of people is dubious. What IS known is that peoples lives, finances, careers reputations etc were ruined.

Those who truly would be involved in subversive acts however circumvented these means of communication and there is no reason to think that would not be the case today as well.

For example some of these terrorist at the time involved with Walker, formed groups without names so that they could answer law enforcement questions with 'no, I don't belong to that group.'

I suspect that american citizens object not only to the nonsense of Bushs pleas to be seen as legitimate but also for concern of the proven record of abuse of information gathered.

Edited January 5, 2006 by John Dolva

[Thomas Graves]

BBC Report:

President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks.

The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said.

He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and he made clear he did not plan to halt the eavesdropping.

He also rebuked senators who blocked the renewal of his major anti-terror law, the Patriot Act, on Friday.

By preventing the extension of the act, due to expire on 31 December, they had, he said, acted irresponsibly and were endangering the lives of US citizens.

The president, who was visibly angry, also suggested that a New York Times report which had revealed the monitoring on Friday had been irresponsible.

America's enemies had "learned information they should not have", he said in his weekly radio address, which was delivered live from the White House after a pre-recorded version was scrapped.

Senators from both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the monitoring programme on Friday.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no doubt it was "inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy.

Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".

But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives".

The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the US had communicated with associates outside before the attacks - but the US had not known that until it was too late.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said.

Monitoring was, he said, a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists".

He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which he has already renewed more than 30 times.

Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public.

"Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said.

The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

What do Americans think about this development?

______________________________________

John,

With all due respect: What, specifically, does this have to do with the "JFK Assassination Debate"?

Thanks, Thomas

______________________________________

Edited January 5, 2006 by Thomas Graves

[Tim Gratz]

Thomas does make a good point. An interesting subject certainly worthy of our attention and debate but probably in the wrong place.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Thomas does make a good point. An interesting subject certainly worthy of our attention and debate but probably in the wrong place.

Given the political philosophy I expressed in my essay, The Construction of Legitimacy, the connection that should be obvious to Tim Castro-did-it Gratz is that these supralegal measures can come back to bite. Not only do they diminish our nation's integrity, but they don't help and they often have unintended consequences. Provocation is not the same thing as peace through strength.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

I wholeheartedly agree with Tim that extra-legal measures such as attempted assassinations of foreign leaders can, and may have, come back to haunt the United States.

I submit, however, that an attempted murder is a far cry from the warrantless interception of a phone call.

[Tim Carroll]

I wholeheartedly agree with Tim that extra-legal measures such as attempted assassinations of foreign leaders can, and may have, come back to haunt the United States. I submit, however, that an attempted murder is a far cry from the warrantless interception of a phone call.

Both situations, to an idealist, compromise the very nature of what makes America great. As for a pedestrian comparative analysis of tactics, don't leave out torture and secret detention facilities, the suspension of due process and the violations of international standards of sovereignty. In an interview recently, Andrea Mitchell asked someone if CNN's Christianne Amanpour had been listened to in the illegal eavesdropping, obviously implying that she has reason to believe it occurred. Wouldn't a journalist, expected to protect sources, consider this a significant trampling of the freedom of Americans? I have yet to hear a reason from the administration or Tim Gratz for why it's necessary to circumvent the FISA process, which doesn't require any warrant ahead of time, just that the eavesdropping be reported eventually. Why violate a fundamental constitutional precept for no reason, apparent or explained? Is this really a partisan issue; Republicans don't care about civil liberties? "Extra-legal" is illegal. If a perjury-trapped fib about a BJ warranted impeachment, what is the appropriate consequence for these current abominations? Or shall we just wait for the next big terrorist attack, not because it was inevitable but because it was actively provoked?

T.C.

[Len Colby]

Are you sure about that, Jim? Jackson was a Democrat. He had been promised the Chief Justice spot by FDR but Truman was President when the seat became vacant. He blamed Hugo Black for being passed over and their very public feud dimmed both their stars.

Eisenhower appointed Warren to the seat eight years after FDR's death. I don't know what Truman or Black had to do with that.

Regarding the Patriot Act and all of the other programs, known or unknown, being enacted in the supposed interest of security, the issue boils down to how America defines itself. It's not about tactics; it's about national identity. To the degree that America resorts to tyranny to combat terror, it becomes a tyranny itself.

T.C.

I didn't explain that very well. FDR had promised to Jackson to promote him to Cheif Justice if the seat became vacant during his presidency. The seat only opened up in 1946 with the death of Harlan Stone. Jackson and Black who led opposing factions both expected to get the nod. Truman chose Fred M. Vinson who helpped reduce the feud some what but Jackson believed that Black had conived to deny his promotion. The fight was very public and I doubt either justice would have been a candidate for Cheif Justice even if a Democrat had occupied the White House when Vinson died in 1953.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

One biography of RMN has a very interesting story of the role RMN played in "backstabbing" his governor, Earl Warren, who was bidding for the presidential nomination himself) among the California delegates to the 1952 GOP National Convention. His role helped secure RMN the veep nomination. It is a fascinating story. The kingmaker behind the Eisenhower nomination was Tom Dewey of New York.

Not relevant to the JFK story but interesting American political history.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not relevant to the JFK story but interesting American political history.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Political Blackmail" which has brought us the continuation of obfuscation in the JFK assassination is, in my opinion, quite relevant to the facts.

In the event one believes the presented "history" that good ole boy LBJ brought Warren to tears with his flag-waving song and dance, then no wonder they can not appreciate how LBJ could blackmail persons such as Earl Warren.

Especially when he had the direct aid and assistance of his "good-buddy" JEH to provide the goods on any and all who would attempt to cross him.

Anyone who does not assume that there is a direct connection between the appointment of Gerald Ford to assume the Presidency and at the same time give RMN a "blanket" pardon, has fallen for too much of the "presented history" of this event.

Anyone who thinks that securing JBC's switch from the deep south Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and thereafter work directly for RMN, has not looked at the facts of the matter in this case.

These are the principal reasons for the continued coverup of the facts as relates to the lies of the JFK assassination.

The actual "coverup" of these facts lies at the very heart of "Political Power" in this country and ultimately drags into the realm the reality of "Politics", just as does the recent campaign contribution scandal.

In a couple of more generations, the american public will be completely new generations who could care less as to the lies which the government has told to the "old" dead and gone generations.

However, there are currently enough of us "oldies" remaining, that we would present a formidable grouping of highly pissed off electorate, were we to all know the facts and truths related to the coverup in the JFK assassination.

Even those who are mesmerized by the "boob-tube" would step away and get involved, were they to recognize how they have had the wool pulled over their eyes in regards to this matter.

Therefore, it would appear that any discussion of Earl Warren, and how he acquired his direct appointment to "Commanding General" of the US Supreme Court, as well as all of the other interconnections between LBJ/RMN/JBC/JEH/Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, etc, are all quite relevant in understanding the formation and operating procedures of the WC, as well as the necessity for the continuation of the misrepresentations of this group.

Tom

P.S. It is assumed that since Arlen Specter "jumped" parties in the early days and his WC efforts got him the term "Honorable", that JBC felt that he could do the same.

[Jim Root]

Tom

Dewey is an interesting person.

Not to mention that John F. Dulles was Dewey's speech writer, in the 1948 campaign Dewey's VP nomination was Earl Warren. Warren's attacks on Truman, that centered around Truman being soft on Communisim, let J Edgar Hoover to suggest that Truman use the Smith Act against Communist organization in the US. The Smith Act Trials would bring forward an attorney named Jonathan Abt whom Lee Harvey Oswald would later attempt to contact while in custody for the assassination of JFK.

As Chief Justice, Earl Warren would overturn the Smith Act convictions of many accused communists in cases that had been argued by Jonathan Abt. The circle continues to intrigue me.

On another note:

I will continue to suggest that the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice was a "back room" political deal that stinks of political corruption at the highest levels. That Warren would become something other than what a majority of his supporters expected is not the point that I wish to speculate upon. Jackson was, in my humble opinion, more deserving than Warren but Warren had the clout of men such as John J. McCloy behind him (McCloy was of course a leading proponent of the civil rights movement in America).

Jim Root

[Ron Ecker]

What makes the Patriot Act, illegal eavesdropping, etc. relevant to the JFK assassination is the "whole new form of government" that Jack Ruby warned us about, echoing Ike's warning about the "military industrial complex." Both men were right on (whether Ruby actually knew what he was talking about or not), in fact I'm not sure how the MIC and the kind of corrupt and illegitimate government we've had since 1963 can be distinguished from each other. With the Bush/Cheney regime this form of government is more naked than ever, but most Americans still think that it's wearing clothes. (I use the word "think" loosely.)

[Len Colby]

I will continue to suggest that the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice was a "back room" political deal that stinks of political corruption at the highest levels. That Warren would become something other than what a majority of his supporters expected is not the point that I wish to speculate upon. Jackson was, in my humble opinion, more deserving than Warren but Warren had the clout of men such as John J. McCloy behind him (McCloy was of course a leading proponent of the civil rights movement in America).

Jim with all due respect I don’t think it ever was a question of Jackson v. Warren for Chief Justice. Jackson was a New Deal Democrat and I seriously doubt Ike would have considered promoting him even if he hadn’t made a deal with Warren. I’ve never heard of a president nominating some for the Supreme Court or promoting an associate justice for Chief who was closely associated with the opposition party. Even if Ike would have considered elevating one of the 8 Democratic associate justices to chief, I doubt he would have chosen Jackson who was infamously at odds with other justices (esp. Hugo Black). Do you have a source for that version of events?

It’s true that Jackson “deserved” the seat more than Warren. Jackson had been an associate justice for 12 years but Warren had no judicial experience. Thankfully however Ike chose Earl Warren it’s hard to imagine Civil Rights and civil liberties would have advanced as much as they did had anyone else been Chief Justice. Brown v. Board of Ed. Probably would have been far less sweeping and not been unanimous if Jackson had been promoted. He was a strict constructionist and was leaning against ending segregated schools.

I know to most Kennedy researchers Earl Warren is a villain but as a longtime member of the ACLU he is a bit of a hero. Supposedly after he nominated him, Eisenhower asked Warren regarding the Brown case (paraphrase) ‘You’re going to make the right decision, aren’t you?’, and Warren assured him he would. He did make the right decision and Eisenhower considered nominating Warren “was the biggest damned fool mistake I've ever made in my life."

If we still had justices like Warren I doubt Bush would be getting away with the shenanigans that he is.

I will continue to suggest that the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice was a "back room" political deal that stinks of political corruption at the highest levels. That Warren would become something other than what a majority of his supporters expected is not the point that I wish to speculate upon. Jackson was, in my humble opinion, more deserving than Warren but Warren had the clout of men such as John J. McCloy behind him (McCloy was of course a leading proponent of the civil rights movement in America).

Jim with all due respect I don’t think it ever was a question of Jackson v. Warren for Chief Justice. Jackson was a New Deal Democrat and I seriously doubt Ike would have considered promoting him even if he hadn’t made a deal with Warren. I’ve never heard of a president nominating some for the Supreme Court or promoting an associate justice for Chief who was closely associated with the opposition party. Even if Ike would have considered elevating one of the 8 Democratic associate justices to chief, I doubt he would have chosen Jackson who was infamously at odds with other justices (esp. Hugo Black). Do you have a source for that version of events?

It’s true that Jackson “deserved” the seat more than Warren. Jackson had been an associate justice for 12 years but Warren had no judicial experience. Thankfully however Ike chose Earl Warren it’s hard to imagine Civil Rights and civil liberties would have advanced as much as they did had anyone else been Chief Justice. Brown v. Board of Ed. Probably would have been far less sweeping and not been unanimous if Jackson had been promoted. He was a strict constructionist and was leaning against ending segregated schools.

I know to most Kennedy researchers Earl Warren is a villain but as a longtime member of the ACLU he is a bit of a hero. Supposedly after he nominated him, Eisenhower asked Warren regarding the Brown case (paraphrase) ‘You’re going to make the right decision, aren’t you?’, and Warren assured him he would. He did make the right decision and Eisenhower considered nominating Warren “was the biggest damned fool mistake I've ever made in my life."

If we still had justices like Warren I doubt Bush would be getting away with the shenanigans that he is.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom

Dewey is an interesting person.

Not to mention that John F. Dulles was Dewey's speech writer, in the 1948 campaign Dewey's VP nomination was Earl Warren. Warren's attacks on Truman, that centered around Truman being soft on Communisim, let J Edgar Hoover to suggest that Truman use the Smith Act against Communist organization in the US. The Smith Act Trials would bring forward an attorney named Jonathan Abt whom Lee Harvey Oswald would later attempt to contact while in custody for the assassination of JFK.

As Chief Justice, Earl Warren would overturn the Smith Act convictions of many accused communists in cases that had been argued by Jonathan Abt. The circle continues to intrigue me.

On another note:

I will continue to suggest that the appointment of Warren as Chief Justice was a "back room" political deal that stinks of political corruption at the highest levels. That Warren would become something other than what a majority of his supporters expected is not the point that I wish to speculate upon. Jackson was, in my humble opinion, more deserving than Warren but Warren had the clout of men such as John J. McCloy behind him (McCloy was of course a leading proponent of the civil rights movement in America).

Jim Root

And, Warren had secured his bed as a result of not disrupting and dividing the presidential nomimations as well as throwing his support to Eisenhower and RMN.

Of course, LBJ also fit well into such corruptive practices, and certainly was not above the same blackmail type maneuvers as were the others.

Especially with a friend like JEH.

[Tim Gratz]

Therefore, it would appear that any discussion of Earl Warren, and how he acquired his direct appointment to "Commanding General" of the US Supreme Court, as well as all of the other interconnections between LBJ/RMN/JBC/JEH/Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, etc, are all quite relevant in understanding the formation and operating procedures of the WC, as well as the necessity for the continuation of the misrepresentations of this group.

It would be interesting to determine how Specter secured his appointment as a staff counsel.

[Jim Root]

Len

I will concede that there was not "ever ... a question of Jackson v. Warren for Chief Justice..." My point is to demonstrate that Jackson was at one time considered a leading candidate for Chief Justice but the decissions that were eventually made (by Truman, while Jackson was in Nuremburg and Eisenhower who had made a deal before he was elected President, precluded the possibility of a Jackson Court).

It is my belief that Jackson would have been a "great" Chief Justice. It does not surprize me that Jackson was at odds with John J. McCloy nor that it would be John J. McCloy's man, Warren, that would eventually become Chief Justice.

That Eisenhower was later disapointed by his selection of Warren coincides with other disapointments that he would be confounded by during his last years in office. Eisenhower's "beware of the military industrial complex" speech, his internal fight with his old friend Maxwell Taylor and the failure of the Paris Summit only added to his woes.

Tim

For myself, how the members of the Warren Commission secured their appointments and positions of prestige continues to be of interest. The McCloy - Warren relationship I find of particular interest. A review of the first meeting of the commissioners is telling. Warren wanted his own man as lead counsel and McCloy didn't.

McCloy got his way on the selection of a lead counsel just as he got his way on the "magic bullet."

As far as the Patriot Act is concerned it is my opinion that a Jackson Court, if it would have ever existed, would never have accepted many of the provisions of the Patriot Act (yet I would suggest that we might all agree that Jackson was a great American).

Jim Root